• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In honour of our ally, Great Britain, upon their recent success...

Infinite Chaos said:
The funeral is soon.

The guy was Royal Highland Regiment (Black Watch) 30 years ago and a really good friend. He was like a 2nd dad to my eldest boy.

Think I'll take some time out from the forum.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear about all that and sorry for your loss.

Just hang in there.
 
I'm glad to see that Britain will finally have one real carrier. I haven't seen the details of its propulsion system, or of how many F-35's it will carry. I'm not sure just what the Queen Elizabeth will allow the Royal Navy to do that it can't do now.

In general, I think the impressive size of aircraft carriers tends to cause many people to overestimate the amount of force they can apply. On the U.S. carriers, one of the four squadrons of armed jets usually on board is dedicated to defending the carrier. That leaves about three dozen available to serve as light-to-medium bombers. In any attack, a few of those probably would not be in play because of mechanical problems. Assuming each plane carried three tons of bombs, on average, one full strike from one carrier could deliver roughly one hundred tons of bombs to their targets. To put that in context, about sixty tons were used in that one cruise missile strike against a Syrian airfield--which was delivered by two destroyers. Of course planes may return to the carrier and be reloaded with bombs for another attack.

During World War Two, the most important thing aircraft carriers did was to make it very risky for even the largest enemy warships of other kinds to operate within range of their planes. Pearl Harbor made that plain. But today, cruisers, destroyers, etc. have antiaircraft missiles which make them less vulnerable to air attack.
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
I'm glad to see that Britain will finally have one real carrier. I haven't seen the details of its propulsion system, or of how many F-35's it will carry. I'm not sure just what the Queen Elizabeth will allow the Royal Navy to do that it can't do now.

In general, I think the impressive size of aircraft carriers tends to cause many people to overestimate the amount of force they can apply. On the U.S. carriers, one of the four squadrons of armed jets usually on board is dedicated to defending the carrier. That leaves about three dozen available to serve as light-to-medium bombers. In any attack, a few of those probably would not be in play because of mechanical problems. Assuming each plane carried three tons of bombs, on average, one full strike from one carrier could deliver roughly one hundred tons of bombs to their targets. To put that in context, about sixty tons were used in that one cruise missile strike against a Syrian airfield--which was delivered by two destroyers. Of course planes may return to the carrier and be reloaded with bombs for another attack.

During World War Two, the most important thing aircraft carriers did was to make it very risky for even the largest enemy warships of other kinds to operate within range of their planes. Pearl Harbor made that plain. But today, cruisers, destroyers, etc. have antiaircraft missiles which make them less vulnerable to air attack.
Click to expand...

General characteristics
Type: Aircraft carrier
Displacement: 70,600 tonnes (69,500 long tons; 77,800 short tons)[5][6]
Length: 280 m (920 ft)[7]
Beam:
39 m (128 ft) waterline
73 m (240 ft) overall[8][9]
Draught: 11 m (36 ft)
Decks: 16,000 m2 (170,000 sq ft) 9 decks beneath flightdeck with hangar covering the centrepiece of two decks (without islands)
Installed power:
2 × Rolls-Royce Marine Trent MT30 36 MW (48,000 hp) gas turbine engine
4 × Wärtsilä 38 marine diesel engines (2 × 12V38 8.7 MW or 11,700 hp & 2 × 16V38 11.6 MW or 15,600 hp)
Propulsion:
Full integrated electric propulsion
4 × Converteam 20 MW (27,000 hp)) Advanced Induction Motors
2 × shafts; fixed pitch propellers
Speed: In excess of 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph)
Range: 10,000 nautical miles (19,000 km; 12,000 mi)
Troops: 250[10] to 900[11]
Complement: 679 crew, not including air element; total berths for up to 1,600
Sensors and
processing systems:
S1850M long range radar
Type 997 Artisan 3D medium range radar
Ultra Electronics Series 2500 Electro Optical System (EOS)
Glide Path Camera (GPC)
Armament:
At least 3 × Phalanx CIWS[12]
30-mm DS30M Mk2 guns
Miniguns
Aircraft carried:
Carrier Air Wing of up to 40 aircraft (50 full load):[13]
F-35B Lightning II
Chinook
Apache AH64
Merlin HM2 and HC4
Wildcat AH1 and HMA2
Merlin Crowsnest AEW
Aviation facilities:
Large flight deck with ski jump
Hangar deck
Two aircraft lifts
Notes: Capable of carrying more than 70 aircraft[14]
Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken the plan is to carry normally about 36 F 35Bs once the UK takes possession in a few years
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
If I am not mistaken the plan is to carry normally about 36 F 35Bs once the UK takes possession in a few years
Click to expand...

It sounds like a somewhat smaller version of a U.S. carrier, with less planes and a complex non-nuclear propulsion system. U.S. carriers have about 260,000 horsepower and use nuclear reactors to power steam turbines. Straightforward and very effective, offering at least 35 mph top speed and a range limited only by the needs of the crew.

I notice that the electric motors on this ship produce a maximum of 108,000 horsepower, which is equivalent to the total power produced by the gas turbines and the two smaller diesels. Presumably it would cruise on some of all of the four diesels to extend its range, and then fire up the gas turbines when more speed was needed. Gas turbines--diesels--electric drive--sounds like a lot there to go wrong. "Bloody hell! All ready to launch and those damned dodgy turbines are acting up again! Rogers, get that sorted straight away!"

I notice that this carrier is quite a lot slower than ours, which could make it more vulnerable to submarines. I also notice that it uses the Phalanx guns, which have been replaced with short-range missiles on many U.S. ships. And I notice that its armed aircraft--the F-35's and Apaches--are American. An impressive ship, sure--but it ain't up to the American standard. Neither are any other nation's carriers.
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
It sounds like a somewhat smaller version of a U.S. carrier, with less planes and a complex non-nuclear propulsion system. U.S. carriers have about 260,000 horsepower and use nuclear reactors to power steam turbines. Straightforward and very effective, offering at least 35 mph top speed and a range limited only by the needs of the crew.

I notice that the electric motors on this ship produce a maximum of 108,000 horsepower, which is equivalent to the total power produced by the gas turbines and the two smaller diesels. Presumably it would cruise on some of all of the four diesels to extend its range, and then fire up the gas turbines when more speed was needed. Gas turbines--diesels--electric drive--sounds like a lot there to go wrong. "Bloody hell! All ready to launch and those damned dodgy turbines are acting up again! Rogers, get that sorted straight away!"

I notice that this carrier is quite a lot slower than ours, which could make it more vulnerable to submarines. I also notice that it uses the Phalanx guns, which have been replaced with short-range missiles on many U.S. ships. And I notice that its armed aircraft--the F-35's and Apaches--are American. An impressive ship, sure--but it ain't up to the American standard. Neither are any other nation's carriers.
Click to expand...

I believe it is the largest aircraft carrier outside of the US fleet


Diesel and gas turbines are if I recall correctly a common propulsion system for non nuclear surfaces ships for exactly the reasons you state, diesel for cruising, gas turbines for combat situations. As a combined system I believe in western navies it has been used for at least 30 years or so. So the kinks of the system working together has been worked out.

The gas turbines are not the RR ones used in the British cruisers which were not working as designed, and had reduced capability when operating in hot humid conditions (ie the Persian Gulf) and are being redesigned. As for AA, I am sure it is planned on operating with one or two dedicated AA destroyers or frigates, along with anti submarine ones as well

No other country has the military budget to build and operate one super carrier. That would be excluding the group that accompanies it as well. None could even dream to operate 10 or 11 of them like the US does

China has one operating as a training vessel (an old Russian ship), one that just launched which to my knowledge is a copy of the first. It is constructing a third one that is a domestic design of course with major influence from all others before. It is believed to be designing a nuclear super carrier based on the first three
 
She's finished her intial sea-trials, and has arrived at her berth in her home port, Portsmouth. (twenty-five miles away) The beleaguered PM made the most of the photo op!

DHYkFWrXUAEhFyX.jpg:large
 
Manc Skipper said:
She's finished her intial sea-trials, and has arrived at her berth in her home port, Portsmouth. (twenty-five miles away) The beleaguered PM made the most of the photo op!

DHYkFWrXUAEhFyX.jpg:large
Click to expand...
Yup, I heard that we're now a global sea power again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom